Punjab DGP admits laxity in high-profile case after developer appears via video conference
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, August 29
In a dramatic courtroom revelation, Punjab Director-General of Police Gaurav Yadav admitted before Punjab and Haryana High Court to significant lapses in the police's handling of the case involving developer Jarnail Singh Bajwa.
The admission came as Bajwa was found monitoring the court proceedings via videoconferencing, minutes after the DGP denied having knowledge about his whereabouts.
“The chief of the police force, present in the court, was unaware and had come on record on an affidavit to say that despite all efforts, including raids conducted at all suspected places, he is untraced though wanted in various FIRs by the police for years together,” Justice Sandeep Moudgil observed.
The Bench observed that the court staff realized that Bajwa was possibly monitoring the proceedings online. The court had kept a website window open throughout the day to facilitate the virtual presence of counsel. On the court's instructions, a command was issued, and Bajwa's presence was confirmed through videoconferencing.
“Faced with the embarrassing situation, Gaurav Yadav, Director-General of Police, Punjab, candidly admitted the failure and laxity of the law enforcing agency on this aspect”, Justice Moudgil asserted in his detailed order.
The court also noted that Bajwa was facing prosecution in 53 FIRs across Punjab, with investigations pending in 39 of these cases.
“Strangely, out of 53 FIRs, investigating is pending in 39 cases, wherein in most of the cases more than five years have lapsed since the FIR registration,” Justice Moudgil asserted, while fixing the case for further hearing on Friday.
Yadav was, on the previous date of hearing, asked by the Bench to assist the court after asserting that his affidavit exhibited helplessness. He was also asked to file detail of FIRs registered throughout the State of Punjab in which Bajwa was involved.
Justice Moudgil had asserted that Bajwa was projecting himself over and above law, showing “least sanctity and regard” to the directions passed by a Court of law.
“This behaviour of any person is not acceptable to the court and needs to be dealt with sternly ensuring that law prevails and all are equal before law. But in the instant case, the respondent is seemingly playing hide and seek with the directions of this Court under a mistaken belief and misplaced impression that his might will prevail”.
